Definition of 'God'--A Contradiction

[MalReynolds]

Well, God hates you both. I say hate because I know God doesn't ever hate, he hates the sin, not the sinner (except gays). You're both prideful, and dicks. Settle down. Get it back on topic before this gets locked, you arrogant cods.

Mal

[Nonexistent_One]

...well, I admit that I am prideful, but that wasn't very civil yourself... Anyways, I'm only trying to understand his argument, that's all. To have a discussion, you must understand the opposing viewpoint...

~NEO

[MalReynolds]

I'm not going for civil here; you two are fighting over petty semantics. And I think it's mainly because Laharl can't think of a good arguement contrary to yours, and you can't think of anything else to prove your point. But that's just my take on things.

Mal

[Privateer]

I don't want to get into this arguement, but just know, Laharl didn't enter this thread to debate the content of the thread creator's post, but rather his approach to his point, and the post in general.

[JesusWaffle]

There are two schools of thought on the irrationality of theories of god. The first is that god defies logic. Fine. The second is that god is made up, and that is why it is illogical. I plan to expound further on this second theory; there really isn't much to expound upon on the first theory (more thought was given to the second, which is why there is much more detail).

The Creation of God

Acoording to Daniel Quinn, author and philosopher, man created god as we know it today around the time he developed agriculture. A hunter-gatherer lifestyle requires expending of calories to get food, water and shelter in a 1:5 ratio. Spend 1 calorie, get 5 calories. Spend 200 calories, get 1000 calories. Now, agriculture was a bit harder. 2 calories gained per 1 calorie spent. Life was hard. So, in order to bring purpose and hope into their lives, the people began inventing tales of a great god who created them and a wonderful afterlife to look forward to. It stuck. Another quirk of this culture was that it required everyone else to do it, too. So, the Totalitarianists set out converting everyone else. Soon, the majority of the world was Totalitarianist. Not all of them followed Christ; Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist and Jewish faiths are other major totalitarianist faiths.

Of course, there was god before agriculture. When prehistoric humans asked themselves the big questions, like "Who created us?" and "Why are we here?", they were unable to answer them. They began forming theories about a great God who created the universe to satisfy these burning questions.

The Salvation of God by Man

Well into the second millenium of Totalitarianism, God lives. Despite the outdating of theories of God by more plausible theories of the Big Bang and Darwinism, God lives. I believe this is because life is still quite hard and people still like the idea of a higher purpose and a glorious afterlife. That, combined with millenia of social inertia, has caused theories of god to still be quite popular, despite all logic. Which brings me back to my original point, which is that God is an illogical fantasy.

[JesusWaffle]

he hates the sin, not the sinner (except gays).

Let me point out a few issues with this:

- How do you know that 'god' hates gay folks? No one has any means of finding this out.

- Your bible says that God hates no one. Contradiction!

- You refer to gay folks as a group; 'gays'. How about I refer to you simply as a 'Catholic'? Stereotypes are bad.

- There is nothing wrong with being gay. Chimapnzees participate in male homoerotic sexplay to keep the males from tearing each other apart. Our genes are 99% identical to Chimpanzee genes. And no we are not 'above' homoerotic tendencies. They are hardwired into our brains as much as heteroerotic tendencies are, and everyone has at least some level of them in them. In fact, sexual orientations are completely mutable, if you put your mind to it. I've changed several times. I could even go so far as to say that we would all be bisexual if not for our society implying to us at an early age that homosexuality is bad*. In face of all this, how can you possibly say that homosexuality is bad.

- The only reason you think homosexuality is bad is because it makes you uncomfortable; you project that homophobia onto your god subconsciously as justification to yoursellf and others for hating homosexuality.



*Most societies make homosexuality a taboo. This is due to the group psychology principle, through which one person or entity of power or esteem (in this case the church) begins thinking something (in this case that homosexuality is bad), and the followers, incapable of or not allowed to think for themselves, begin thinking the same way. The idea is inherited, and eventually becomes fact in the eyes of those victimized by this pattern. Some societies do not accept the idea that homosexuality is bad, such as the ancient Greeks. It would be a great pleasure to go into great detail about the widely accepted kinky behavior of the ancient Greeks, but I shall not.

[Moogy]

MalReynolds was being sarcastic.

Extremely sarcastic.

How did you not catch that?

[CypherToorima]

I love you mal.

[JesusWaffle]

MalReynolds was being sarcastic.

Extremely sarcastic.

How did you not catch that?

Grr. Sorry Mal. Don't ever do that again, please. I never catch sarcasm.

[MalReynolds]

Oh man, I'll be sure never to use sarcasm on the internet ever again. Just for you.

Mal

[CypherToorima]

<3

[Nonexistent_One]

Have you not noticed that I'm not even arguing your point? You first started to criticize me for being opinionated, so I'm telling you you've been the same way. Follow?

You began your argument stating that "The defenition of God is a perfect being. Perfections can in fact lie in things humans find to be imperfect," without supporting your claim.

Omnimax is your definition of perfect, correct? It's what you feel God should be. Why must God meet your expectations of what he SHOULD be if he's already something else?

What is this "something else" that he already is? Yes, my definition of 'God' follows my own criteria, because that is the only logical criteria for a 'God' that I know of. If you disagree with my definition, please give your own.

Hence my point entirely. I have a feeling you don't exactly get along with anyone. Love is irrational, but it's one of the most pleasurable feelings on earth. Do you push away that "illogical comfort" as well?

I don’t understand why you feel the need to lower to personal criticism. I happen to have many friends that I get along with exceptionally well, because we all have a good sense of humor. When the topic of religion comes up, we are mature enough to keep the argument civil, so that everyone benefits intellectually, instead of having condescending attitudes towards others with different beliefs. I’d like it to be the same way with you and others at this forum.

If true love is irrational, tell me how. Love shared between two people is different than comfort provided by leaps of faith. If I know that someone else truly loves me for everything that I am, then it is perfectly logical to take comfort in that fact, and in turn do the same for them. Here is a real, substantial person that accepts everything that makes me who I am—I am truly important to someone, and that is reassurance that life is worth living. Making a mark on others is one of the only things I believe to be worthwhile in life; that is one of my personal goals.

Maybe the extreme utter loathign I have for people much like yourself isn't coming through at all?

People like you make me tired, to the core, to my very inner soul. Leave those of us that believe alone, please. Just go away and do your own thing. If someone jumps down your throat with their own belifs about a God, feel free to banter and argue with them. At one point in time, religion was a topic that was not to be discussed at FFR because it's a touchy subject.

If you’re implying that I do this to destroy others’ beliefs, you are wrong. I post such things like I did to have an intelligent discussion on something relevant (and prevailing) in our society today. It was not meant to “jump down theists’ throats”—after all, I forced no one to read this.

Creating rules for a topic on an open-discussion internet forum unless you're an admin or moderator is foolish.

And I'm glad to have wasted your time. It's been an honor.

I never created rules specific for this topic. I merely stated the general rules for a valid argument. You can find these rules here-- www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html (excuse the atheism references, but the subject matter within is all the same)

If this argument was going somewhere, like it actually almost is now, it would be worth it. Thank you for being straightforward about your thoughts, because it really helps.

I was once cabable of having a good, healthy arguement, and then some stuff happened, and my mind isn't quite what it used to be. I am no longer capable of doing much in a friendly manner. It happens when life decides to throw you an unlucky hand when it comes to the chemistry that creates your brain.

I’m sorry to hear that. This argument might possibly be able to go a lot smoother.

I never say God Bless in all seriousness. I did it mostly to poke under your skin.

Usually when a person of religious preference gives me a blessing, I take into consideration their standpoint and accept their blessing with an open heart. I understand that it is their way of showing that they care for me as a person. Using that to mock me makes me slightly upset, but I understand that I have been hard on you as well.

~NEO

[JesusWaffle]

Oh man, I'll be sure never to use sarcasm on the internet ever again. Just for you.

Mal

That was sarcasm too, right?

[flypie743]

Obviously.

[Nonexistent_One]

I'm not going for civil here; you two are fighting over petty semantics. And I think it's mainly because Laharl can't think of a good arguement contrary to yours, and you can't think of anything else to prove your point. But that's just my take on things.

I agree. I believe that it is the clashing of attitude vs. pride, and I honestly have a lot of pride concerned with my intelligence. It's hard for me to let things go, so I apologize to any I have made uncomfortable.

I don't want to get into this arguement, but just know, Laharl didn't enter this thread to debate the content of the thread creator's post, but rather his approach to his point, and the post in general.

Thank you. I'm not sure how I was supposed to realize this, but it could have been worded to look more like constructive criticism than an opposing argument. I am open to constructive criticism--that's why I post things such as this. I am not, however, open to condescending criticism, because it is wrong to infer superiority and enforce it withought rightful claim.

To JesusWaffle: Those are interesting theories. I think I might look into those when I get the time.

To Moogy: It is hard for me to catch sarcasm through the internet as well. It is easy for someone to mistake written sarcasm for ignorant claims.